Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Wait For Process

wait_for_process

Blocks execution until the specified process exits or a timeout occurs, enabling synchronization with process completion.

Instructions

Block until a process exits (or timeout).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pid": "<pid>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_process"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pidYes
timeoutNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the two most important traits (blocking and a bounded timeout), but leaves the timeout outcome unspecified (does it return, error, or return a partial result?) and says nothing about behavior for an invalid or already-exited pid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is close to ideal for a two-parameter tool. Its terseness is efficient rather than padded, though it also leaves room that richer disclosure would need.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need describing, and the blocking nature is covered. Still missing for a synchronization primitive are the timeout unit and the timeout-result contract, which an agent needs to interpret the response correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies 'pid' identifies the process and 'timeout' bounds the wait, but never states the timeout unit (default 30 seconds vs milliseconds) or whether pid must be live at call time.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('block until a process exits') and the blocking semantics distinguish it from the read-only sibling get_process_info. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over polling with get_process_info or process_tree, no stated prerequisites, and no warning that the call blocks the caller. The parenthetical timeout hint is the only usage-adjacent information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools